In an eyebrow-raising about-turn, CNN has published, then retracted, a news story that claimed that women’s votes were governed by their menstrual cycles, triggering an avalanche of criticism.

Based on unpublished research, the news piece stated that a woman’s voting behaviour was affected by whether she was ovulating on election day.

While the story was nixed within hours, the internet reacted immediately and unforgivingly, with Twitter users swiftly tweeting key quotes.

“New research suggest that hormones may influence female voting choices differently depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship”, read the article, as tweeted by @KailiJoy.

“When women are ovulating, they ‘feel sexier,’ and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality” the piece went on.

“The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney”.

A host of websites swooped onto the story, showing no mercy while feeding from its apparently grossly sexist – and under-researched – line.

Huffington Post’s headline was typical of the viral reaction: “CNN Reports That Women Voters Are Apparently Incapable Of Cognition, According To LOL Science”.

I’m annoyed CNN deleted the story from its website. When you stuff up, you should keep the story there and just add on links to the stories criticising it. You shouldn’t just pretend you never published it.

Now for the even more controversial part: 502 women, also with regular periods and not taking hormonal contraception, were surveyed on voting preferences and a variety of political issues.

The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers’ overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.

Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.

“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.

Durante’s previous research found that women’s ovulation cycles also influence their shopping habits, buying sexier clothes during their most fertile phase.

It’s obvious to me that women are just slaves to their hormones, and their free well is an illusion.

“It was long thought that a woman shouldn’t be president of the U.S. because, God forbid, an international crisis might happen during her period!” Carroll said.

Oh shit, she just nuked Iran. We told the Ayatollah not to provoke here during her time of month.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 27th, 2012 at 10:00 am and is filed under Humour, International Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

71 Responses to “The CNN menstrual story”

This broadcaster has lost all credibility. CNN’s defence of Crawley for her appalling “moderating” in POTUS debate II is typical of their bias. Perhaps that sort of crap is designed to cover their other extremes.

Some of the graphs at the end of the paper in the link in DPF’s last line are interesting though. Those do show significant differences in some of the preferences but unfortunately on the voting one the differences aren’t significant at all, which is a shame, isn’t it. But some of the other measures are interesting. I couldn’t be arsed reading the paper so I don’t know the veracity of the method used so who knows if the data is correct. And who cares.

Get your hand smacked last night ‘kowtow’? Nowhere have any special “wimmin’s rights” been mooted but it is somewhat of a tradition in the West for females to have the same rights as men. We try to leave oppression on the grounds of gender to the Muslims who have raised the practise to an art form.

Okay, females of breeding age can get a bit niggly around the wrong time of the month but it is hardly a good or sufficient reason to debar women from political office or disenfranchise them.

Can’t be arsed reading the research paper, but there’s no reason in principle to rule it out. Anyone who imagines their own brain isn’t influenced by hormones is kidding themselves, and there are likely to be patterns to that influence at the population level. Menstruation makes women easier targets for this kind of research, but it could be applied to men with a bit more effort – eg, whether a higher testosterone level makes men more likely to vote for aggressive sociopaths.

The “tradition” of wimmin’s rights in the west is not that long. The much touted votes for them here was the result of a political stuff up and in the UK only in 1918,women over 30 and property owning. The rot set in there after.

Okay, females of breeding age can get a bit niggly around the wrong time of the month but it is hardly a good or sufficient reason to debar women from political office or disenfranchise them.

nasska, have a look at those graphs in the paper. They’re interesting.

I don’t understand the line this thread is taking whereby it’s about anything but the data. If the data shows a significant difference in attitudes, that’s interesting. And if it doesn’t, it doesn’t and if it’s valid, it’s valid and if it’s not, it’s not. Period. End of story. And how is anyone going to answer those questions if they haven’t looked at the data? Crikey.

We try to leave oppression on the grounds of gender to the Muslims who have raised the practise to an art form.

That’s from a general perspective and I imagine a lot of men have the wrong attitudes over there. But I think sometimes people lose sight of the fact that in times past the marital arrangement used to be a deal, whereby the husband was the agreed head with mutually accepted duty of having the final say and the wife would willingly submit to that arrangement. And that was true throughout the world for centuries up until the 1920’s. But here’s the bit we’ve missed in this deal. It’s the duty of the husband, a good husband and accepted many aren’t especially today but anyway, the duty of a good husband was not to abuse that position by exercising it with love and kindness at all times.

Lots of people seem never to consider whether, out of the millions of couples around the world who live in places that still practice that marital principle, maybe some of those men really do act honourably. And really, not every Muslim society is full of burkas. Look at photos of Iran street scenes and look at what the chicks were there. Jeans, T-shirts, etc.

There’s no doubt that the research paper involved wouldn’t have rated a mention by CNN had the presidential election campaign not been in full swing. There would need to be a lot more study before any stance could be taken & even if a concrete position could eventually be taken what would it achieve? As Psycho Milt has already pointed out men have a less than perfect record when decisions are influenced by testosterone……who knows how many wars may have been avoided had the protagonists indulged in a bit of nooky the night before.

Somehow hormone tests before voting may yet prove to be slightly impractical.

I note your point that male dominance in Islamic society does not always guarantee that a woman’s life will be hell on earth but it offers little in the way of assurances that they will be treated well. My view is that if their society has nothing to fear from promoting equal rights for both genders then the concept would meet with less resistance.

I guess what I’m saying nasska is that if it’s a willing arrangement on the part of both parties then why is it viewed by outsiders as an unequal rights issue, because it’s not, is it? And how does anyone know how many couples are truly like that – willing, heads up, volunteers? It seems to me an arrogance of the west thing that’s taken over from the 1800’s as the modern white man’s burden thing and it’s the same thing, in different directions: i.e. an overbearing self-righteous arrogance disguised as a caring position.

I suggest that if the vast vast majority of cases were in fact as oppressive as many in the west seems to hallucinate, then I’m pretty sure the women in those societies would behave differently from the way they do. I mean you can point out the thousands of point instances on the interweb which document issues of oppression if you like, but the actual society consists of hundreds of thousands of additional couples than those document, all living and growing up in thousands of local towns all throughout the land. And not all of them, surely are like those documented examples.

It’s obvious to me that women are just slaves to their hormones, and their free well is an illusion.

It did not claim that David, nor was publishing the finding of research a “stuff up”. The science and the evidence shows that hormones have a huge effect on peoples behaviour.

Its fact, not an emotive subjective opinion informed by hard line feminist doctrine.

Science should not be distorted and censored in order to make it more PC. Sadly this is all too common. Research into humanity is littered with distortions, and outright lies, in order to appease left wing ideology. One example is the subject of race and IQ. There is clear evidence that some races are smarter than others. But that reality is distorted due to fears that some people may use it as an excuse to mistreat others. We are told some appalling drivel to appeal to political and social norms. It can not be called science.

“All” is far too general when the discussion involves millions of relationships. What we do know is that cultural factors lead people to accept as unavoidable, lives which are totally without self purpose & any degree of self fulfillment. If this is to be encouraged by us writing everything off as merely an ethnic custom we are inviting a similar sort of oppression to develop within our own society.

After all we accept explanations such as the ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ without question. We know through studies of anthropology that patriarchal societies seldom change from within. Effectively Muslim tradition holds that goats, females & camels are property…..from that base it is doubtful that many of their women ever achieve a status beyond cook & baby factory. Islam has never shifted itself out of the eighth century while the rest of the world has moved on.

I don’t think that your opinion nor mine is going to have much influence over 1.4 billion religious head cases but if we fall into the trap of considering their practises as acceptable in the 21st century we run the risk of slipping into the same mindset.

nasska, Why is it that liberated Kiwi girls are, by far, the most unhappy miserable women I have ever met?

Kiwi girls should be living in a womens paradise. We are a country run by women. The most extreme radical feminist views have become so normalised that they attract no comment. Our legal system is bias against men to an appalling degree. It is institutionalised misandry.

Yet your all a bunch of emotionally crippled, bitter harpies. They are have the further distinction of being the most promiscuous women in the world. That is based on a study, but it is an obvious fact if you have traveled or dated outside of English speaking Anglo Saxton culture.

I doubt the Muslims, you are attacking, see much value in your ideology. It may pay to remember they have a cultural depth and history you can not even fathom, so maybe they know a thing or to you do not.

“If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.”

I’ve always found it hard to believe Baroness Thatcher was a woman, Johnboy. I don’t know why. Maybe it was her hair.

Kiwi girls should be living in a womens paradise. We are a country run by women. The most extreme radical feminist views have become so normalised that they attract no comment. Our legal system is bias against men to an appalling degree. It is institutionalised misandry.

Well said Kea. Never forget, we’re a test case for the rest of the western world. What happens here, happens to the rest of the western world, in due course.

The other point you may want to ponder nasska, is that the women are Muslims to. They do not see themselves as “victims” of Islam, but as part of it. They support the very same beliefs you are attacking. You do not represent Muslim women, as you hold yourself up to do. You represent the failed social experiment that is NZ society today. Many Muslim women would regard you with disgust. You get off your high horse. The better informed of us are not fooled.

I’m well aware that my views would not resonate with Muslim women…..I wouldn’t expect them to & it doesn’t particularly bother me that they don’t. The miserable misogynists who run the Islamic faith have never allowed their followers freedom of thought…..in many Islamic counties women are not even permitted a basic education so the possibility of change from within is slim & remote. They are not going to change because of what I think but it doesn’t mean that I have ignore the systemic oppression of about 700 million people.

Your comment re the happiness or not of Kiwi women is pertinent & I admit that I haven’t got a clue why they insist on being so miserable & bitter. The good thing is that they at least have personal choice…..if they don’t want to use it to their advantage then so be it.

Credit where it’s due, Christianity was the starting point of the Western concept of equality although in many cases the traditional churches dragged the chain in implementing the idea rather than blathering about it.

But they are streets ahead of the backward Islamic faith…..just like the Bhuddists & Hindus.

In ancient times women were as slaves. In many cultures today, that is still the case.

Christianity comes along and teaches men and women are of equal worth

Your a liar Rufus.

Your bible is a filthy and depraved book and an offence to all decent minded people. Here is what your filthy vile bible really says:

When a MAN SELL HIS DAUGHTER AS A SLAVE, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Interesting isn’t it? You enjoy all the benefits of Christianity, but won’t give it any credit. Instead you endlessly ridicule and curse it.

Used as a horrible punishment for women, the breast ripper was used to inflict pain, blood loss and the mutilation of their breasts. It was usually used for women accused of conducting abortions or of adultery.

The claws were often placed, red hot, on the victim’s exposed breasts, the spikes penetrating to achieve a powerful grasp. They were then pulled to rip off or shred the breasts. If the victim wasn’t killed she would be scarred for life as her breasts were literally torn apart.

A common variant was known as “The Spider,” which is a similar instrument attached to a wall. The victim’s breasts were fixed to the claws and the woman was pulled by the torturer away from the wall, removing or mutilating them. This was a brutal punishment that often resulted in the victim’s death.

“For three centuries of early modern European history, diverse societies were consumed by a panic over alleged witches in their midst. Witch-hunts, especially in Central Europe, resulted in the trial, torture, and execution of tens of thousands of victims, about three-quarters of whom were women. Arguably, neither before nor since have adult European women been selectively targeted for such largescale atrocities.”

“Igwe says children who are accused of being witches by their families are often chased out of their homes. These abandoned children can fall prey to child trafficking and abuse. Other children and infants charged with sorcery are tortured or even murdered.”

I doubt Jesus existed, but if he did, the right thing was done nailing the prick to a cross. O

Christians tortured hundreds of thousands of people to death, not Jesus.

The bible clearly condones slavery. And no………. the new testament does NOT over ride the old testament. Your mate Jesus was crystal clear on that.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

So this still stand too:

“If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones … (NKJV) — Deuteronomy 22:13-14,20-21

Of course there is nothing you can say to refute what I have said. Its all there in your stinking evil bible for all to see. I really have to wonder about the mentality of someone who would turn to that vile book of hate for comfort and moral guidance!

Rufus
Have you read the gospel according to Mary?
doubt it the catholic church suppressed it
wonder why could it be that it did not want to give woman equal rights?
It was legal to rape or beat your wife until recently the change from this did not come from within the church
We frequently see these claims from the god squad about how good Christianity has been for humanity. Unfortunately history or reality does not support such claims. At no time has freedom been freely given by the church instead it has been an ongoing battle of humanity and progress vrs superstitious nonsense

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV) — Timothy 2:11-12

And they rant about the Muslims !

Of course the Ten Commandments are ok. No working on the Sabbath is one of them. These are the in the offences and penalties section.

You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on that day must be put to death. (NLT) — Exodus 35:2

So NO working tomorrow. The bible has a story about this, to help guide our morality. Some christians came upon a man gathering sticks on Sunday. (Probably to make a small fire to feed his wife and kids. )

Numbers 15:32-36
King James Version (KJV)
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Credit where it’s due, Christianity was the starting point of the Western concept of equality although in many cases the traditional churches dragged the chain in implementing the idea rather than blathering about it.

Well Naaska, the Vikings introduced the concept to the Catholics early in the piece. Catholics still run a denial and the anglics have a foot in both camps. Vikings went close to Rome and just missed sacking the Pope. Shame really.

Kea – so far, you have not disproved my claim. All you have done is taken some bible verses out of context, called me a liar and a coward, and generally behaved like a petulant child.

With every post, you add further weight to my assertion that you are an imbecile.

Feel free to retract the “coward” bit. I had a hungry toddler that needed to be fed, bathed and entertained. Then I had to cook dinner and enjoy some time with my wife who had come home from work – all way more important than trying to illuminate your blind and twisted mind.

Are you really arrogant enough to believe that never in its 2000 year history Christianity has ever before had to deal with your silly little argument?

Have you got the “silver bullet” that will disprove its central claims, or confound its followers, amongst whom can be found the greatest minds in history?

Greatest minds in history Since the church has lost the ability of killing or jailing desenters three greatest minds are arguably
Newton ……alchemist
Einstein …..agnostic did not believe in the Christian concept of personal god
Darwin…….. ended up an agnostic

All I can go by is what God has revealed of Himself- that He is is good, and evil is anything that is contrary to His character. Good enough for me.

Here are some examples of what YOU consider good (not evil)

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD HAD COMMADED Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

“The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.” [The child dies seven days later.] Samuel 12:11-14

Ah yes, us religious folks could learn something about decency and truth from those shining examples of non-religion, the Communists. Decent folks those. And honest. That’s why they have collectively murdered more in the last 100 years than the “religious” of any bent, combined, have since records began.

Big claim. Refute it if you can.

Where do you think your concepts of common decency and truth come from? Where are they evident in any other culture?

EVERY culture, EVERY belief/non-belief (if you think that could logically follow) system has been used as “reason” to kill others.

HUMANS ARE THE PROBLEM.

You have no answer at to why it is right to condemn Jesus.

The best the Jews (religious leaders) could muster was “He claims to be God”, and the civil rulers couldn’t find a reason either.

He was put to death for political expediency.

Jesus said to “love your enemies”, even to die for them. He said that you’d know His followers by their actions – ie they would do as He commanded them.

Murdering and torturing go against what He taught.

He also said many would claim to be Christians, but are not, because they did not do what He taught.

So how can you say that Christians “tortured hundreds of thousands to death”?

(BTW, you still haven’t given me any proof of this claim, just more assertions. Assertions /=/ proof. I pointed you towards TIA, which uses historical records to prove otherwise)

Wouldn’t it be closer to the truth to say humans kill other humans for any number of reasons, under the guise of any number of belief systems?

Interesting isn’t it. You cannot honestly be a Christian in good standing after murdering a whole village of peasants as Jesus said “you shall not commit murder” and “love your enemies”.

You can still be an atheist in good standing after murdering a whole village of peasants.

You know what you are doing here Kea – you are judging the cultures, their practices, and their beliefs with your own ethereal, subjective, post-modern, 21st C western sensitive “morals”.

Nope Kea, you showed some irrelevant OT Mosaic laws given to a desert people thousands of year ago.

That was not what jesus said. I have already quoted the bible verse that proves that. Here is some more evidence for you:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

As for your, very un=orignal, observation that non-believers, communists etc, do terrible things too, your right. But they do not do those things because of a non belief in god. There are no wars, deaths, oppression in the name of atheism.

Your going in circles. I have answered all this before. You refuse to accept the evidence in front of your eyes. That is why its called “faith” and not “reason”. You did not use reason to form your beliefs, so reason will not change them.

Stop being a dick, people are the problem end of story. We don’t need religion to kill one another, the 20th century made that abundantly clear.

It’s regrettable some people haven’t yet understood the elementary fact that history is littered with examples of people who do something in the name of something they claim, but it turns out via historical fact that it wasn’t for that reason at all. And only mentals blame religion for that was only what they said it was about, not what it really was about.

Like take today for example. Today we, the Christian west, is being setup for a war against the Muslims. It’s not a religious war, at all, since we don’t hate the Muslims and the Muslims don’t hate us. But we’re being told they do, and mentals are believing the propaganda in droves. We have vast flocks of mentals now wandering the western landscape bleating about how nasty Muslims because look at this and look at that.

But what the vast flocks of mentals haven’t understood yet, fucking der, is that if “the Muslims” hadn’t been treated by guess who – that’s right, the Christian West, as they have for hundreds of years culminating in the viciousness we’ve seen exercised by Western influence in the ME in the last 15-20, which fucking hell, what a surprise, has resulted in equal viciousness being exercised by lower elements in those societies. But just like obedient little sheep, the vast flocks of mentals completely fucking ignore every single little bit of any of that inter-generational provocation, and unbelievingly pretend that what have the Christian West ever done to them, and aren’t they nasty.

I mean it’s galloping mentalism at it’s finest that the Christian West majority doesn’t see it like this, for that is how the history books will write up the early years of the twenty first century.

Kea, you hate Christians because you claim (without evidence) that Christians have tortured hundreds of thousands to death..

You’d have to prove:

A. That they were Christian (ie followed Jesus’ teachings)
B. That they tortured 100,000s to death.
C. That they did this because they were Christians. ie. it was an extension of their beliefs.

Good luck with that.

I come back with saying non-religious folks have actually proven to be even more barbaric, if we go by body count.

Somehow in your world that’s not as bad since they had non-religious reasons?

That’s some screwed up “logic”.

You are not showing much of your valued “common decency” or “truth” here tonight. You are happy an innocent Man was executed 2000 years ago, you wish other posters on this forum dead, you happily make shit up with no evidence, and you’re quick to call names.